Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-05-18

partisan issue, wouldn't that come nearer
settling it than the way you suggest?
Wouldn't it increase all good mems love
for the Democratic party? Would it
be likely to cost the Democratic party in
the future one single vote? Wouldn't it
be an unanswerable argument against the
third party Prohibitionists and effectually
stop their future gains from Democratic
ranks! Again, haven't you practically
conceded by your suggestions the invinci-
ole strength and immortality OF the pro-
: hibition idea, when in addition to humid
reds OF thousands of dollars from liquor
men outside of Texas, in addition to DR..
Arch Cochran, and your reliance upon the
Republican coIOred and the Bohemian
vote, you yet think it necessary to array
against prohibition the name of party
whose majority in Texas is $4,000.
1t must be strong principle that,
without money, naked-handed, requires
such combination to defeat it. If pro-
hibition is wrong, prove it. Why seek
rather to prove it is anti-Democratic Is
it fairly courteous on your part to desig
nate this movement as ga pretext for in
novation on Democratic policy?"
Allow me to respectfully esk if there is
any one word in all the official utterances
by any just construction can warrant
such an allegation Have they, by one
hairs breadth, swerved from their Origi-
nal declaration, that eve make this can
vass as citizens of Texas, without refer
ence to partisan politics or distinctions
of race and religion ?" Have they, in
any one particular, gone outside of what
you, yourself, say was the legislative
intent in submitting this question "to g
fair vote of the people, in the fairest
mode in which it could be done, that is,
y as an isolated issue unencumbered with
5Eother questions!" Have they not even at
The cost of friends and help, utterly left
alfmOral and religious organizations to
theiTSeWn methods of work rlgidly with
holding any organic union with this COM
mittee? %TBy what process of reasoning
then can yon justify your advice to the
anti-prohibitiep g convention? Having
thus noticed your last and most i'm
portsnt reason sf0r aligning yourself
against prohibition, let US examine the
nextin. value. You say: CATER looking
through the sacred book from Genesis to
the end, find an exhortstion to every
virtue and rebuke for every sin, but l
nowhere find the S6condemns-
ton of the making Cor, drink
ing Of wine" This statement
with application has appeared fofmany
years in the campaign tracts issued blythe
distillers of sour mash whisky. Their
tracts containing it are flooding Texas
now. They always shelter the saloons
and distilIeries behind Bible grape juice,
as you do now. To reply to this objec-
ton, you well know, would subject the
prohibition committee to the charge and
prejudice of making a religious crusade.
Any use of the Bible on their part in this
discussion would be met with the objec-
ton that the sacred scriptures are neither
! the constitution nor statute books Of sec
ular governments; that such q SUPPOSE
ton implies i union of church and state,
so justly obnoxious to every Am eriCan
citizen l would again respectfully pro-
pound to you other questions.
Suppose it is proven that the Bible
justiies state prohibition; will that be
considered a settlement of this contro-
versy? Only let that appear authoFifa&
lively, and no War-hOrse ever rushed
more gladly 10 battle than Prohibitionists
would rejoice TO accept the issue. Re-
feet for a moment, and ask why the 1000
preachers of Texas, who have made that
book their life study, favor prohibition
with such remarkable approach to
| unanimity? There are doubtless eXCep-
| tiOns, and honorable ones, but they are
| exceptions so few in number as 10 show
more clearly by contrast, the colossal out
lines of the overwhelming majority.
Suppose the lawyers of Texas approached
as near to unanimity in regard to certain
legal propositions, would it not be &C
counted presHmptuOuS in 8 man not q
lawyer to affirm that they were all wrong
in their interpretations of their own text
| books? And without going into the ar
( gument, is it not q fair presumption
against your position, that preachers so
nearly unanimously, and the Christians
asa rule, have reached differ
ent3conclusion from your own? Again
from what part of this amendment do
Eyou find warrant for speaking of the
| "drinking of wine?" Or where do you
find in it suggestion about Changing
moral convictions by force?" And by
what conjuration do you find in 1t the
"fires of the inquisition," or the burning
of Massachusetts witches? And if you
do find them there, how could you recon-
Gle it to your conscience to recommend
the submitting of such an awful measure
to g vote of thepeople? Are the gentle
men managing the prohibition campaign
-unauy Oh Iuem your IelIOW IOWuSueu
and your equals in both manhood and
| Democracy-are these gentlemen witch
burners and inquisitors? Take the role
of their central committee and compare
il with yours; take their club rolls and
compare them with yours, and wherein
on any point of responsibility or Democ-
racy, do they suffer by the comparisonY
And what, allow me to ask, is the
real value of your generaIities about the
fifty years prosperity of Texas, without
prohibition? How much is such an argu-
ment worth? If it proves anything, it
would prove that you ought not now to be
Governor, since Texas has gotten along
so well without you for fifty years. 1t
would be equally forceful against all new
measures. 1t would crystalline civiliza-
ton and petrify progress and stop the
moving hand upon the dial plate of time.
You certainly got this conceit from
Washington Irying's Rip Var Wrinkle.
And when you talk about the shades of
evil cast by the liquor traffic over your
rose-colored retrospect of fifty years, you
certainly put it mildly, considering the
number and blRckness of the shadows.
But when you claim that present laws
are competent to deal with these abuses,
Al